1. What is Response-to-Intervention? Provides support when children fail to respond to high quality evidence- based instruction (Troia, 2005) Intervention for those who do not meet expected goals without lengthy special education eligibility assessment (Ehren, Montgomery, Rudebusch, & Whitmire, 2006) Extra support given within framework of universal instruction (Ehren & Whitmire, 2009) New Role in Response-to-Intervention: The Speech-Language Pathologist’s Perspective References American Speech Language Hearing Association. (2002). A workload analysis approach for establishing speech-language caseload standards in the school: position statement [Position Statement]: Available from asha.orgii Ehren, B., Montgomery, J., Rudebusch, J., & Whitmire, K. (2006). Responsiveness to Intervention: New Roles for Speech-Language Pathologists: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Ehren, B. J., & Whitmire, K. (2009). Speech-Language Pathologists as Primary Contributors to Response to Intervention at the Secondary Level. Semin Speech Lang, 30(02), 090-104. doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1215717 Elksnin, L. K., & Capilouto, G. J. (1994). Speech-Language Pathologists' Perceptions of Integrated Service Delivery in School Settings. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 25(4), 258-267. Jackson, S., Pretti-Frontczak, K., Harjusola-Webb, S., Grisham-Brown, J., & Romani, J. M. (2009). Response to Intervention: Implications for Early Childhood Professionals. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40(4), 424-434. Justice, L. M. (2006). Evidence-based practice, response to intervention, and the prevention of reading difficulties. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 37(4), 284-297. doi: dx.doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2006/033 Murawski, W. W., & Hughes, C. E. (2009). Response to Intervention, Collaboration, and Co-Teaching: A Logical Combination for Successful Systemic Change. Preventing School Failure, 53(4), 267-277. doi: 10.3200/PSFL.53.4.267-277 Staskowski, M., & Rivera, E. A. (2005). Speech--Language Pathologists' Involvement in Responsiveness to Intervention Activities. Topics in Language Disorders, 25(2), 132-147. Troia, G. A. (2005). Responsiveness to Intervention Roles for Speech-Language Pathologists in the Prevention and Identification of Learning Disabilities. Topics in Language Disorders, 25(2), 106-119. Melissa Bunch, Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Montana Tier 1: Universal Instruction Provides high quality instruction to all students of all abilities. Continuous progress monitoring for overall success and achievement. Implemented by Classroom teachers Tier 2: Targeted interventions Evidence based interventions with frequent progress monitoring. Often implemented by specialists and SLPs. Tier 3: Specialized treatments Addresses individual needs and deficits May be referred for further assessment Often implemented by special education resources What is the traditional model? Students scheduled for individual therapy sessions and pulled out of their core classes and miss valuable content class time (Ehren & Whitmire, 2009) SLPs are limited in collaboration and consultation with classroom teachers (Elksnin & Capilouto, 1994) Therapy approach limits the carryover from intervention sessions to application in social and academic contexts (Elksnin & Capilouto, 1994) Classroom Instruction based on grade level curriculum Refer for testing for special education services SPED services Served by SPED teachers, Resource Teachers, and SLPs Student Identified not meeting expected goals Student eligible for services Student not eligible for services Why is this change important for SLPs? Earlier identification of at risk students (Ehren & Whitmire, 2009) Opportunity to change learning environment for students (Justice, 2006) Greater involvement with implementation of evidence- based interventions (Jackson, Pretti-Frontczak, Harjusola- Webb, Grisham-Brown, & Romani, 2009) Increased collaboration with other professionals (Justice, 2006; Murawski & Hughes, 2009; Staskowski & Rivera, 2005) Change from caseload to workload approach (ASHA, 2002) Survey Research Questions What are the perceived advantages under the RTI model? What are the perceived disadvantages under the RTI model? What are the perceived advantages? What are the implications? Acknowledgements Ginger Collins, Ph.D., CCC-SLP, Faculty Advisor, Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Montana Montana Speech-Language-Hearing Association What are the perceived disadvantages? Small amounts of paperwork Research Based Fewer referrals Proactive interventions Faster student improvement Inadequate training High workload RTI as substitution for IEPs 40% 20% Response to Intervention Framework Traditional Intervention Framework Survey Participants Pilot data collected from members of Montana Speech Language Hearing Association (MSHA ) (N=12) Areas of Employment 8% Head Start 38% Elementary 27% Middle School 19% High School 8% Medical Years of Experience 17% 1 to 5 years 17% 6 to 10 years 8% 11 to 15 years 58% 16 or more years Many SLPs see advantages to using the RTI model. SLPs will be better able to address prevention and early intervention, possibly benefiting more students in the long run. However, high workload and inadequate training are being reported as difficulties they experience in implementing it. Ongoing education and training about RTI and various service delivery models could lessen SLPs’ negative perceptions of RTI. Change from the traditional service delivery model could make better use of the SLP’s time, thus minimizing the “high workload.”